The first narrative parallel found in the Muktaka is to one story preserved in the Avadana-sataka, an early compilation of 100 Buddhist narrative stories,which has attracted much scholarly attention,probably because it is available in Sanskrit, as well as Chinese and Tibetan translations (and modern translations).
54)It is well known that this compilation includes many stories that are closely parallel to those preserved in the Mulasarvastivada-
52）Gnoli (1977:xxii), for example, in his edition of the Gilgit manuscripts of a few of the vastus of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya, describes the characteristics straight- forwardly:“This
vinaya must have enjoyed a noticeable fortune also on account of its
unusual literary qualities.Jatakas,avadana s,vyakaran・as,sutras,tales written in a style
both plain and vivid,relieve the dry enumeration of the disciplinary duties,that［sic.］ruled the life of the Buddhist communities.”Cf. M. Muldoon-Hules (2011:10-11).
53）It may also be noted that a large number of cliches that are known to be preserved in both the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya and several
avadana compilations are found in the Muktaka
. In 1.1.2, for example, the following cliches appear: Salvation (Hiraoka 2002, no. 8A ＝ Demoto 1998, no. 11), Rays of the Buddhaʼ s Smile (Hiraoka 2002, no.8D ＝ Demoto 1998, no. 14), DeitiesʼVisit to the Buddha (Hiraoka 2002, no. 4A ＝ Demoto 1998, no. 16), The Fruit of Stream-winner (Hiraoka 2002, no. 9C ＝ Demoto 1998, no. 17), and A Cheer from the Stream-winner (Hiraoka 2002, no. 9D ＝ Demoto 1998, no. 18).
54）For the history of research on the Avadana-sataka, see, for convenience, Demoto (2006:esp. 207‑215).
vinaya . Panglung (1981), for example, notes at least seven parallels in his broad survey of narrative stories found in the Tibetan Mulasarvastivada-
vinaya . Panglungʼ s survey is, without doubt, of great importance in the research of the relationship between the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya and other Buddhist narrative literary works. It is frequently referenced as a reliable and informative work and is sometimes described as “exhaustive”survey especially in Japanese scholarsʼworks on Indian Buddhist narratives.
55)It is not,however,by any means exhaustive.Schopen (2000:136,n.22;2001:141
‑142,n 21),for example,points out that Panglung does not refer to the fact that the 36th and 54th stories of the Avadanasataka are fully preserved in the Nidana of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya ,
56)and remarks that his work is
“weak in citing parallels to the Avadanasataka.”Yao (2011: 12‑13) also points out that Panglungʼ s research requires caution,since it does not refer to Chinese texts sufficiently,nor does it pay attention to the sutra parallels that are void of narrative elements.The parallels that I will explain below are also overlooked by Panglung.
The Muktaka begins with a series of narrative stories about a quarrel between two monks ( 1.1). One of the monks was so furious after being insulted by the other monk that he died with much hatred and was reborn as a venomous snake. The Buddha went to see the snake and gave him Buddhist teachings, one of which was expressed in verse. As a result, the snake produced a sincere, devout mind and was reborn in heaven in the end.
57)The 51st story of the Avadana-sataka,titled “Krs
・・n asarpa”in Speyerʼ s
55）e.g.Demoto (1998:107‑116);Yamagiwa (1999:50);Okano
(2004:s.v.Sanghabhedavas-tu).
56）See also Schopen (2005b:303, n. 18). For the texts and translations of both stories found in the Nidana of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya,see Kishino (2013: 3.3.3 and 3.
7.1).
57）Unlike the Tibetan version, Yijingʼs 義浄 version somehow comprises two similar stories about a quarrel between two monks one of whom was reborn as a venomous snake (Story A:T. 1452［24］435c14‑436b11;Story B:T. 1452［24］436b12‑c16). The
Sanskrit edition and in Feerʼ s French translation, is very similar.
58)The main character is not a monk but a rich householder. He was very stingy and greedy for wealth.When he died,he was so concerned about his wealth that he was reborn as a venomous snake. The snake was so fierce that he killed many people. King Bimbisara, therefore, requested the Buddha to reform him. The Buddha, having accepted the request, went to the forest where the snake lived and gave him the teachings, one of which was expressed in verse. Consequently, the snake produced a devout mind and was reborn in heaven.
There are several differences between the story in the Muktaka and the 51st story of the Avadana-sataka. In the latter, the main character is not a monk but a layman.It is not hatred but greed that caused him to be reborn as a snake.It is King Bimbisara,and not King Prasenajit,who came to see the Buddha give teachings to the snake.
59)Both stories, however, have essentially the same narrative structure:a man was reborn as a poisonous snake due to his evil spirit, but was relieved from his pitiful destiny by listening to the Buddhaʼ s direct teachings and becoming a profoundly pious Buddhist. More importantly, the Buddha spoke identical verses in both stories.
60)It seems plausible, therefore, to regard these two stories as
Buddhaʼs teaching in verse with which the snake was deeply impressed appears neither in Story A nor in Story B.Instead,it partially appears in prose in Story A.(See n. 60 below).
58）Avadana-sataka(Speyer, I, 289‑294);Feer (1891:198‑201).
59）Neither King Bimbisara nor King Prasenajit appears in Yijingʼs 義浄 version of the
Muktaka
(T. 1452［24］436b29‑30).60）The Muktaka(Derge 7 Pa 145a7‑b1;it is not preserved in Yijingʼs 義浄 version):
khyod ni byol song skye gnas gyur
//mi dal bar yang skyes gyur na
//don med par ni ci phyir du
//da ni ci zhig byar yod kyi
//rgyal ba thugs rje ldan mngaʼla
//sems kyis legs par dad skyed dang
//byol song skye gnas ʼ dir spangs te
//de nas mtho ris ʼ gro bar ʼ gyur
//Avadana-sataka
(Speyer, I, 291):idanı m
・kim
・karis
・yami tiryagyonigatasya te
/aks
・an
・apratipannasya kim
・rodis
・i nirarthakam
//sadhu prasadyatam
・cittam
・mahakarun
・ike jine
/parallel, though it remains uncertain which story is older or more ʻ original.ʼ
61)In regard to the second narrative parallel found in the Muktaka , little, if any,explanation is necessary,since it was already discussed by a promi-nent scholar more than 100 years ago. It is a narrative story about S
́rı guptaʼ s attempt on the Buddhaʼ s life.This story has come down to us in various sources;it is included in several famous compilations of Buddhist narratives, such as Kumaralataʼ s Kalpanaman
・・d itika (2nd century CE),
Haribat
・・t aʼ s Jatakamala (5th century CE), and Ks
・emendraʼ s Bodhisattva-vadana-kalpalata (11th century CE), and is also extant as a single sutra version in the Chinese and Tibetan translations.
62)The Muktaka of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya also preserves a long version of the story( 2.4.2.2).
tiryagyonim
・viragyeha tatah
・svargam
・gamis
・yasi
//Cf. Feer (1891:200):
Que ferai-je maintenant que tu es alle dans une matrice dʼanimal,
que tu est tombe dans une situation calamiteuse?Pourquoi pleures-tu,vraiment?
Bien! Cree dans ton esprit de bonnes dispositions pour le Jina a la grande compassion.
Si tu rejettes ici les attachements (qui te valent) la matrice dʼun animal, tu arriveras ensuite au Svarga.
Cf. Yijingʼs 義浄
Muktaka
(T. 1452［24］435c29‑436a2):“賢首應知, 諸行皆無常, 諸法悉無我, 寂靜涅槃 . 汝宜於我, 起淨信心, 由此功徳, 捨傍 生趣, 生善道中.”
The 58th story of the Avadanasataka,titled “
Mahis
・a
”in Speyerʼs edition (I,331‑335) and Feerʼs translation (224‑225),also includes these verses.The narrative structure of“
Mahis
・a,”however, is not similar to that of the story preserved in
1.1.2 of theMuktaka
.61）There seem to be two possible and opposing ideas regarding the relationship between the Avadana-sataka and the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya ― unlike in the case of the Divyavadana and the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya.One idea is that the Avadana-sataka is based on the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya. The other is, on the contrary, that the
Mulasarvastivada-vinaya is based on the Avadana-sataka
. There are arguments and suggestive evidence to support both ideas, and therefore the relationship between these two texts has yet to be comfirmed. See Schopen (2001:102;2014:362) for the former idea, and Yamagiwa (1992) for the latter.62）For the variety of textual sources of Śrıguptaʼs story, see Akanuma (1931: s.v.
Sirigutta);Lamotte (1944:184‑185, n. 4);Okumura (2000:74);Yamasaki (2011:70).
In his book of“Asvaghos
・aʼ s Sutralam
・kara ,”
63)Levi(1908:102‑106［154‑158］) notes that a full version of S ́rı guptaʼ s story is preserved in the Genbenshuo-yiqieyoubu-mudejia 根本説一切有部目得迦 which we now know to be Yijingʼ s 義浄 translation of the Muktaka of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya.
64)At that time Levi referred to it as the “ Mula-Sarvastivada-nikaya-matrka”and explains the outline of the story based on Yijingʼ s 義浄 version in detail.
Leviʼ s book is,of course,one of the seminal works on avadana stories,and is frequently referenced,especially by those concerned with Indian Buddhist narratives.His reference to the S ́rı gupta avadana preserved in the Muktaka of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya,however,seems to have received insufficient attention.Panglung (1981:209‑210),for example,shows that there are seven parallels between the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya and Ks
・emendraʼ
s Bodhisat-tvavadana-kalpalata by providing a table of narrative stories found in both texts. He does not mention, however, the fact that S ́rı gupta avadana is found in both texts,
65)although he references Leviʼ s book. More recently,
Yamasaki (2011:esp.41‑74),in his excellent dissertation on three stories in the Bodhisattvavadana-kalpalata, gives a precise overview of the literary works and refers to all of the related scholarly works.When discussing the research history of the 8th story(S ́rı guptaʼ s story),however,Yamasaki does
63）It seems that the text that Levi assumed to be “Asvaghos・aʼs
Sutralam
・kara”instead
proved to be Kumaralataʼs Kalpanaman・・d itika;Okano (2004:s.v.kumaralata);Yamasa-
ki (2011:179‑180,n.40).In relation to this issue,it should also be noted that S ́amatha-deva comments on the quotation from the 56th story of theDazhuangyanlun-jing
大莊 嚴論經 (T.201)preserved in the Abhidharmakosa-bhas・ya,and refers to the quotation as
originating from a work of Kumaralata (Tib.gZhon nu len);Honjo (1983:esp. 16, n.2);cf.Okano (2004:n.20).This also supports the idea that the author of the text is not Asvaghos・a but Kumaralata.
64）Nishimoto (1933:13)also points out that Śrıguptaʼs story is preserved in Yijingʼs 義 浄 version of the Muktaka, as well as the Binaiye鼻奈耶 and the Shisong-lu十誦律.
Okumura (2000:74‑75) compares the three versions of the story, and notes that the
Binaiye
鼻奈耶 and the Shisong-lu十誦律 versions correspond remarkably well.65）The table provided by Panglung is, once again, noted as incomplete by Schopen (2007a:217, n. 52).
not mention Leviʼ s observation that it was preserved the Muktaka,though he refers to Leviʼ s book elsewhere in his dissertation.
66)There seems to be no doubt that these two parallels to relatively well-known avadanas found in the Muktaka have been long ignored by many modern scholars. There may be several good reasons for this. One of the most plausible reasons may be that the Tibetan Uttaragrantha , the text including the Muktaka and so on, and the Genbenshuoyiqieyoubu-nituona-
mudejia 根本説一切有部尼陀那目得迦, the Chinese text comprising the Nidana and the Muktaka , have received insufficient scholarly attention.
Panglung (1981:xiii),once again,for example,refers to the Uttaragrantha as
“ Anhang (appendix),”
67)and does not consider it at all in his survey of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya.
68)Indifference toward the Uttaragrantha still appears to be common among many scholars,particularly those who focus on avadana s.
69)66）Yamasaki (2011:179‑180, n. 40). It may also be noted that Straube (2009:316‑319) also pays little attention to Leviʼs observation in his edition and translation of the 8th story of the Bodhisattvavadana-kalpalata.
67）Cf. Kishino (2013:25, n. 1).
68）Cf. Schopen (2001:141‑142, n. 21).
69）Demoto (2009), for example,does not mention the parallel preserved in the Nidana of the Mulasarvastivada-vinaya in her translation of the story of Maitrakanyaka of the
Avadana-sataka
.Equally,Okano (2008:99,n.1)also disregards the Nidana version and assumes that the story of Maitrakanyaka of Ks ・emendraʼs Bodhisattvavadana-kalpalata (the 92th)is sourced from the 36th story(the story of Maitrakanyaka)of theAvadana-sataka
. As Yamasaki (2011: 68) points out, however, Okano does not provide any evidence to support his assumption. Given that many studies suggest close relation- ships between Ks・emendraʼs Bodhisattvavadana-kalpalata and theMulasarvastivada-vinaya
(see Panglung 1981,esp.209‑210;cf.Schopen 2007a:217,n.52;Yamasaki 2011:41‑74), the possibility should be taken into account that Ks・emendraʼs version of the story of Maitrakanyaka is based on the Nidana version. The same may be true of Straubeʼs treatment of Śrıguptaʼs story in his translation of the Bodhisattvavadana-